That sutta only says that form, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness - that that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is not proper to regard as 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'.That is all it says.And several other suttas make the same point.

That sutta only says that form, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness - that that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is not proper to regard as 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'.That is all it says.And several other suttas make the same point.

OK so what is self then? Does the Buddha say in any sutta what the self is?

I think Dr. Mendis' article is quite clear. There is no self or soul in the Aggregates,nor is there one separate to, or standing behind the Aggregates, in the Teachings of the Blessed One.

Karuna,Chris

---The trouble is that you think you have time------Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe------It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

That sutta only says that form, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness - that that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is not proper to regard as 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'.That is all it says.And several other suttas make the same point.

OK so what is self then? Does the Buddha say in any sutta what the self is?

In AN 3.40 the self is one of our governing principles. In SN 22.34, 47.13 and DN 16, the self is a refuge/light/island. In Khp 8 the self controls. In Dhp 160 the self is a mainstay; in Dhp 165, it is that which we do evil by and that which purifies; in Dhp 379 it reproves, examines, guards. In Ud 5.1 it is our dearest love (fiercely so). In Iti 1.33 it is that which Awakens. In Sn 4.4 it's that which we let go of; in Sn 4.14 it is conjured, swells, and then witnesses the Dhamma. In Thag 3.14 it is that which knows the ways we are born.

Please show us all one Sutta, just one, where the Buddha clearly taught that there was a permanent Self or Soul.

With mettaChris

---The trouble is that you think you have time------Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe------It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

Bhikkhus, what exists by clinging to what, by adhering to what does view of self arise? … When there is form, bhikkhus, by clinging to form, by adhering to form, view of self arises. When there is feeling…perception…voltional formations…consciousness, by clinging to consciousness, view of self arises. … Seeing thus… He understands: …there is no more for this state of being. – SN III 185-6.

Monks, whatever contemplatives or priests who assume in various ways when assuming a self, all assume the five clinging-aggregates, or a certain one of them. Which five? There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person -- who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma -- assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.... Owing to the fading of ignorance and the arising of clear knowing, (the thoughts) -- 'I am,' 'I am this,' 'I shall be,' 'I shall not be,' 'I shall be possessed of form,' 'I shall be formless,' 'I shall be percipient (conscious),' 'I shall be non-percipient,' and 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient' -- do not occur to him." SN III 46

It is impossible, it cannot come to pass that a man possessed of (right) view should treat any dhamma as self [atta] – this situation does not occur. MN iii 64

‘Bhikkhus, self and self’s property being unapprehendable as true and established, then would not this view “The universe is the self; after death I shall be permanent, stable, eternal, immutable, eternally the same, endure as long as eternity” be the pure perfection of a fool’s idea?’ ‘How not, lord? It would be pure perfection of a fool’s idea.’ MN 22/ I 138

"But who, Venerable One, is it that feels?" "This question is not proper," said the Exalted One. I do not teach that there is one who feels. If, however, the question is put thus: 'Conditioned through what does feeling arise?' then the answer will be 'Through sense impressions as a condition feeling [arises]; with feeling as a condition, craving [arises]." SN II 1

The world, as a rule, is fettered by attachment and clinging to things, and is firmly adhering to them. But the learned and noble disciple does no longer attach himself, cling firmly, adhere and incline to the thoughts: 'I have an attaa,' and he knows: 'Merely dukkha that arises, merely dukkha that vanishes.' SN II 17 SN III 135

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

Please show us all one Sutta, just one, where the Buddha clearly taught that there was a permanent Self or Soul.

With mettaChris

Hi Chris,Why would I do that? I'm not talking about the self as permanent or soul (David Hume is instructive here), so please don't put words in my mouth. I agree with the Buddha and William James about the self that even though the self isn't permanent or a soul it is nonetheless real. Just look at all the suttas I just cited.Kindly,dL

Bhikkhus, what exists by clinging to what, by adhering to what does view of self arise? … When there is form, bhikkhus, by clinging to form, by adhering to form, view of self arises. When there is feeling…perception…voltional formations…consciousness, by clinging to consciousness, view of self arises. … Seeing thus… He understands: …there is no more for this state of being. – SN III 185-6.

Monks, whatever contemplatives or priests who assume in various ways when assuming a self, all assume the five clinging-aggregates, or a certain one of them. Which five? There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person -- who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma -- assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.... Owing to the fading of ignorance and the arising of clear knowing, (the thoughts) -- 'I am,' 'I am this,' 'I shall be,' 'I shall not be,' 'I shall be possessed of form,' 'I shall be formless,' 'I shall be percipient (conscious),' 'I shall be non-percipient,' and 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient' -- do not occur to him." SN III 46

It is impossible, it cannot come to pass that a man possessed of (right) view should treat any dhamma as self [atta] – this situation does not occur. MN iii 64

‘Bhikkhus, self and self’s property being unapprehendable as true and established, then would not this view “The universe is the self; after death I shall be permanent, stable, eternal, immutable, eternally the same, endure as long as eternity” be the pure perfection of a fool’s idea?’ ‘How not, lord? It would be pure perfection of a fool’s idea.’ MN 22/ I 138

"But who, Venerable One, is it that feels?" "This question is not proper," said the Exalted One. I do not teach that there is one who feels. If, however, the question is put thus: 'Conditioned through what does feeling arise?' then the answer will be 'Through sense impressions as a condition feeling [arises]; with feeling as a condition, craving [arises]." SN II 1

The world, as a rule, is fettered by attachment and clinging to things, and is firmly adhering to them. But the learned and noble disciple does no longer attach himself, cling firmly, adhere and incline to the thoughts: 'I have an attaa,' and he knows: 'Merely dukkha that arises, merely dukkha that vanishes.' SN II 17 SN III 135

No, "there is no self" claim here either; likewise, this topic would not exist without ourselves making it happen.

cooran wrote:Please show us all one Sutta, just one, where the Buddha clearly taught that there was a permanent Self or Soul.

But is there a sutta where he clearly taught that there wasn't? In the Ananda Sutta he equates the no-self view with annihilationism, which is wrong view.

Exactly. Given the opportunity to say, "there is no self," he refused.

Nobody can tell an unenlightened, UN-liberated being that there is no self because in the sense of the unenlightened there is a self. Just as the Buddha did not deny gods. The Buddha did not deny delusional entities.

Kutadanta Sutta

'Only through ignorance and delusion do men indulge in the dream that their selves are separate and self-existing entities.

This body will be dissolvedand no amount of sacrifice will save it.Therefore, seek the life that is of the mind.Where self is, truth cannot be;When truth comes, self will disappear.Therefore, let your mind rest in the truth;propagate the truth, put your whole will in it, and let it spread.In the truth you shall live forever.

Self is death and truth is life.The cleaving to self is a perpetual dying,while moving in the truthis partaking of Nirvanawhich is life everlasting.

Gaoxing wrote:Actually the Buddha’s methods of refusing to speak about no-self or self are simple when considering the audience.

In SN44.10 the Buddha refused to say that "there is no self". He chose to say something else, anatta. I know that some say that "Buddha didn't want to confuse Vaccha who couldn't understand". But the Buddha refused to say to Venerable Ananda , a stream-enterer (who could understand), that "there is no self".

In MN2, "am I not" and "I have no self" are said to be wrong reflections. Interestingly, the right reflections are not replacement of wrong ontological positions with "right" ones. Right reflection is contemplating 4 Noble Truths and things that lead to extinguishment of clinging.

There are also lists of undeclared questions. If the answer was "The question is incorrect because it assumes Self, and there is no self", then why didn't the Buddha say so - at least to the bhikkhus who could understand?

"And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are undeclared by me.MN63

Please note: They were not undeclared because they assumed Self. Why couldn't the Buddha say so? Rather, the rejection of views if far more pragmatic...

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

Gaoxing wrote:Actually the Buddha’s methods of refusing to speak about no-self or self are simple when considering the audience.

In SN44.10 the Buddha refused to say that "there is no self". He chose to say something else, anatta. I know that some say that "Buddha didn't want to confuse Vaccha who couldn't understand". But the Buddha refused to say to Venerable Ananda , a stream-enterer (who could understand), that "there is no self".

In MN2, "am I not" and "I have noself"f" are said to be wrong reflections. Interestingly, the right reflections are not replacement of wrong ontological positions with "right" ones. Right reflection is contemplating 4 Noble Truths and things that lead to extinguishment of clinging.

There are also lists of undeclared questions. If the answer was "The question is incorrect because it assumes Self, and there is no self", then why didn't the Buddha say so - at least to the bhikkhus who could understand?

"And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are undeclared by me.MN63

Please note: They were not undeclared because they assumed Self. Why couldn't the Buddha say so? Rather, the rejection of views if far more pragmatic...

If there is no 'I'' it is stupid to think "I have no self" so agreed with the Buddha. If there is no 'I' it is stupid to think "am I not" so agreed with the Buddha. If there is no 'i' it is stupid to think "am I not" so agreed with the Buddha. But it is not agreed to that the Buddha refused to state that there is no-self. Ananda already new that but the Buddha also new Ananda was still suffering from a self-view.

Are you saying the Buddha spoke rubbish in the quote below?

Kutadanta Sutta

'Only through ignorance and delusion do men indulge in the dream that their selves are separate and self-existing entities.

This body will be dissolvedand no amount of sacrifice will save it.Therefore, seek the life that is of the mind.Where self is, truth cannot be;When truth comes, self will disappear.Therefore, let your mind rest in the truth;propagate the truth, put your whole will in it, and let it spread.In the truth you shall live forever.

Self is death and truth is life.The cleaving to self is a perpetual dying,while moving in the truthis partaking of Nirvanawhich is life everlasting.

'Only through ignorance and delusion do men indulge in the dream that their selves are separate and self-existing entities.

This body will be dissolvedand no amount of sacrifice will save it.Therefore, seek the life that is of the mind.Where self is, truth cannot be;When truth comes, self will disappear.Therefore, let your mind rest in the truth;propagate the truth, put your whole will in it, and let it spread.In the truth you shall live forever.

Self is death and truth is life.The cleaving to self is a perpetual dying,while moving in the truthis partaking of Nirvanawhich is life everlasting.

The Kuttadanta Sutta I'm familiar with has no such poetry. Where is your selection from? Paul Carus' work The Gospel of the Buddha? I wonder what his source is... anyone?

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]